 | This is anessay on theno consensus policy. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article or aWikipedia policy, as it has not beenreviewed by the community. |
In any discussion onWikipedia, there are three possible outcomes:
The result of a discussion ending in "no consensus" depends on the nature of the proposed change. Often, people feel that "no consensus" should mean that the current status quo prevails, which, therefore, defaults to keep. That is not always the case. Also, a lack of alocal consensus among those participating does not mean there is no "no consensus" in the broader community. Often it is the case that a closing admin will recognize that arguments for one side are much better founded in (community consensus supported) policy than for the other, and so there actuallyis consensus support for one particular outcome.
Discussion and debate on a proposal may continue on talk pages after a "no consensus" situation, but in the meantime, it is important that affected articles are not subjected toedit wars despite a lack of policy or guideline direction on an issue. Astatus quo approach is preferable where practical and possible to promote article stability and to prevent edit warring.
It is important to note that a few vocal dissenters do not create "no consensus". [This is debated.[1]] Please seeCONSENSUS for further discussion of what constitutes consensus.
In anyXfD (WP:AfD,WP:TfD, etc.), "no consensus" defaults to keep—with the exception ofWikipedia:Redirects for discussion andWikipedia:Files for discussion. In,Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, it may default to retarget or disambiguatein some cases. InWikipedia:Files for discussion, if there issignificant doubt raised about the copyright status of a file, the closing administrator may choose to delete the file under theprecautionary principle. Keeping a page preserves all options and the possibility of future discussions.
If the administrator closes the deletion review asno consensus, the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. However:
At RfA, if there is no consensus to promote, then the only possibility is that there is no promotion.
In a discussion regarding a section ofpolicy or guideline, "no consensus" means that a proposed section should not be added. If the discussion is about a section already in the policy, that section should be removed. Policy and guideline should reflect consensus. If there is no consensus as to existing policy, then it no longer reflects that and should be removed. Similarly, if there is no consensus over the status of a page (e.g. policy, guideline, essay), then the status may need to be discussed further and more people brought into the discussion.
When discussing the appropriateness of ablock (or other administrator action), a discussion that results in "no consensus" should result in the reversal of that administrator action. As with policy, blocks and other administrator actions should reflect the consensus of the community. And, while an administrator does not need to have a discussion prior to acting in good faith, if a subsequent discussion fails to produce consensus for the action, it should be reversed.[1]
The following are footnotes: